Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1978/10/17 Item 24~ii~ ur ~nu~H vi~ih COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. 24 For meeting of 10/17/78 ITEM TITHE Reso1 SUBMITTEp BY Ci~ ITEM EXPLANATION (4/5TH'S VOTE REQUIRED YES N0~) The Cit Council approved in principle an agreement with the Montgomery Fire Protection Distric providi g for a joint dispatching operation between the two agencies. At the request of Montg mery's Board members, certain modifications to the agreement were sug- gested nd accep ed by the City Council. Those modifications have been made to the attache agreeme t. One mat er deali g with the payment provision was not resolved and it was referred back to staf for a f nal recommendation. Staff has met with two members of the P1ontgomery Board a d discus ed our intention to adhere to our original recommendation of a $15,000 annual ayment f r services provided under the contract. The members of the Montgomery Board did not in icate whether or not they would acquiesce to this amount but we would expect ppeal to the City. Council fora reduced rate. In staf 's reeva uation of its original recommendation, we could find no objective cri- teria t at would reduce the amount below the $15,000, but have to conclude that the only rational basis tat we could find for determining what this rate, should be would result in a ra e of $20 000 per year or more. Two specific areas that could be considered as a basis for dete mining monthly payments under the contract were explored. The fir t of the e methods involves the total operating cost of the fire dispatching portion of the t tal operation. In this instance, prior to the consolidation of Police and Fir dispatc ing, Chula Vista was required to employ five fire dispatchers to provide 24-hour a day, 7 days a week service. As a practical matter, the way the joint dispatch center ow opera es, those same five dispatchers are needed and their annual salary includi g fringe benefits equals approximately $75,000 per year. In addition, one Police Sergean is assi ned to the communications center at all times, with an annual cost of supe vision o $120,000 (five times $24,000). The total sum, therefore, for the five operato s (.$75,0 0) and a 20% factor for supervision ($24,000) equals a total annual cost of $99, 00. If e use a pro rata sha ~( sum per station, Montgomery would experience "~~B~~~ o tinued S pl ment 1. Paqe 2 Ag Bement Resolution, Ordinance Pcfa~ ~oti~ica~tion fist Ot er ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Attached Submitted on FINANCI IMPACT STAFF RgCOMMENDA1fI0N Adopt Resolution BOARD/CaMMISSION~RECOMMENDATION COUNCTL (ACTION ution ~ ~ ~1. Approving Dispatching Agreement with Montgomery Fire Protection District Manager L/~G ^~ .. s! of C';::i~ ~ist~l, ;;,~;i0t~ila 5j~~ D~-~-d ~G~i l/ /Q-/~~7~ tc;i _...____._____.___._~--------- Supplemental Page 2 Item No. 24 Meeting of 10/17/78 a cost Using a dispatc one-fif Staff w annual with th jurisdi a philo the sav agencie annual equal s can be Imperia as well Again, i respons ment wi we do n. area eve ERA:mab ~f sligh populat ling, Mo :h of th uld fee harge, prospe tions, ophical ngs to In avings vings b, xpanded Beach, as subs -e do not bilities shout bei ~t believ ~n though ly under $20,000, i.e., one station compared to four in Chula Vista. on ratio and applying the same total annual dollar cost for fire tgomery would again be expected to pay approximately $20,000, i.e., total cost. more comfortable in recommending an agreement requiring a $20,000 ut we believe the benefits that may accrue to Chula Vista, coupled is of expanding the joint dispatching concept to include other ustifies our $15,000 recommendation. Staff finds it difficult, from point of view, to accept a lower figure than $15,000 in that we believe e realized should be shared as equally as possible between participating his instance, the Montgomery Fire Protection District would realize an f approximately $15,000 and, in a sense, Chula Vista would realize an reason of additional revenue derived. If the joint dispatching concept to include in the future Bonita-Sunnyside, National City, and even substantial savings to the entire South Bay community could be realized, antial savings to each of the participating agencies. believe the Chula Vista taxpayer should be required to take on the added and problems that would be created by reason of the contractual arrange- ng compensated for those additional duties and responsibilities. Likewise, e that the Chula Vista taxpayer should subsidize taxpayers in another we fully support the concept of joint dispatching. ~'3/C October 20, 1978 UBJECT~ ection xecutic he City e actuz anguagE or sere ouncil wo-yeas he agrE eginnir 4 -mono istrict enance or the A:mab Cit City Attorney E. R. Asmus, Assistant City Manage Dispatch Agreement with Montgomery Fire Protection District 5 of subject agreement will have to be changed before n by the Mayor, to provide the payments indicated by Council. Inasmuch as it is uncertain at this time when lly will assume their dispatching responsibilities, the in this section should provide for payment in advance ice rendered, up to and including December 31, 1978. indicated the annual rate is $10,000 per year for a period; thus on a monthly basis that rate is $833.33. ement should provide for advance quarterly payments g January 1, 1979 and continuing for the balance of the period. The section should also provide that the agrees to pay full cost for the installation and main- of all necessary telephone equipment and all charges use thereof. Clerk ~.~9~ C~.ty of Chula Vista Council Meeting - September 12, 1978 Central Dispatching Montgomery Fire Protection District s - preliminary) 1. 2. Thanks to Chief Winters for a tour of the Dispatch Center & explanation of how it works. MFPD reviewed agreement prepared by city attorney at our last regular Board meeting. (Changes we would like you to consider for modification) A. Section 4-----It shall be the obligation of the MFPD (delete Chief) Board of Directors or their designee and the C.V. Police Chief and their designated rep- resentatives to establish appropiate procedures for the implementation of the program to provide said centralized dispatching services and to provide adequate training and information to the persons under their direction to ensure the effective im- plementation thereof. (MFPD -Concern re: TRAINInTG) B. Section 5 (Payment of Services) MFPB would like to make a counter offer for payment of services per month based on teh fact that there has been no previous experience to develop arty reliable criteria to arrive at an annual cost. We therefore request that a yearly fee of $800.00 per month be accepted for one year after which we would meet and confer regarding the future payments. C. Pacific Telephone has provided us with the costs to extend our present communication systems to C.V. central dispatch. The MFPD agrees to pay these installation costs and the monthly fee as outlined by Pacific Telephone. D. SecttSon 6---- starting with: on such date as may be mutually agreed upon by (change to the MFPD Board and the C. V. city council) etc..... (O.K.) E . Sect ion 7 - TERMINATE I,A~3" MFPD feels that a, day notice of termination is adequate. LL, `;, , ,Jl